MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening! It’s May 13th, 2016. My name is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for our weekly broadcast here from LaRouchePAC.com. I’m joined in the studio tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg, from Executive Intelligence Review, and Megan Beets from the LaRouchePAC science team; we’re also joined, via video, by Kesha Rogers, member of the LaRouchePAC Policy Committee and leading political figure in the State of Texas and nationwide.

We all had an opportunity to have a rather extensive discussion with Mr. LaRouche earlier today, in which he delved into some very profound issues which we are going to explore in a little bit more depth over the course of this broadcast here tonight. Also, Mrs. Helga LaRouche was involved in that discussion as well.

What we’re going to do to begin tonight’s broadcast is to very quickly touch on the continuing fight which is beginning to boil over around the release of the 28 pages, and the confrontation with the Obama administration over that issue. We will also touch on our institutional question very briefly, and give you Mr. LaRouche’s response to that. But the bulk of our broadcast tonight will feature Kesha Rogers and Megan Beets discussing a little bit more in depth what Mr. LaRouche elaborated earlier this afternoon.

As many of you may have seen, we are facing what is becoming an all-out show-down with the Obama White House over the release of the 28 pages. Two and a half weeks ago, former Sen. Bob Graham appeared on “Meet the Press,” in which he called unequivocally for the release of the 28 pages. One week following that, John Brennan, the Director of the CIA, appeared on exactly the same program and said, “We will not release the 28 pages,” and attempted to shut that down. Just this week Bob Graham has come right back at John Brennan and released an Op-Ed which was published on Wednesday in the Washington Post. The Op-Ed is titled “Former Senator Says: ‘Release the Uncensored Truth About 9/11.'”

Very briefly, what Bob Graham says in this Op-Ed is the following. He begins by saying, “Nearly 15 years after the horrific events of 9/11, President Obama must decide whether to release 28 pages of information withheld as classified form the publicly released report of the congressional inquiry into the terrorist attacks that killed thousands of Americans.”

Bob Graham says that he received a call after the “60 Minutes” episode that aired almost a month ago from the White House. At that point he was optimistic about the release of the 28 pages. But then he goes on to say, “My optimism about the administration’s action on this critical issue was short-lived. On May 1, when CIA Director John Brennan appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” I watched with astonishment as he argued that the 28 pages should not be released because the American people are incapable of accurately evaluating them…. With all due respect, that argument is an affront not only to the American public in general but also to all those who lost family members, loved ones and friends on that fateful September day in 2001. Americans are fully capable of reviewing the 28 pages and making up their own minds about their significance.

And then Bob Graham finished his Op-Ed, by saying, “The release of the 28 pages would allow the American people to evaluate important questions, such as:” and then he lists a number of them. The final question that he asks, is “Has the 13-year delay in empowering the American people with the information in the 28 pages affected national security, delayed justice to the families of the nearly 3,000 Americans killed on 9/11 or undermined the confidence of the American people in their federal government?”

One day following Bob Graham’s Op-Ed, Bob Graham’s daughter, who is a federal Democratic Congresswoman from the State of Florida, Gwen Graham, as well as Walter Jones, who is the original sponsor of H. Res. 14, to release the 28 pages, both took the floor in one-minute speeches in the beginning of the session of the House of Representatives. We are going to play, very briefly, those two short clips for you from the speeches from Representatives Gwen Graham and Walter Jones.

REP. GWEN GRAHAM: Mr. Speaker! Today I rise as a proud daughter, to talk about a matter of government transparency. The families of those who lost their lives on September 11, [2001] and all Americans deserve to know who was behind these terrible, horrific, terrorist attacks. I believe some of those answers can be found in the 28 classified pages from the Joint Inquiry into the attacks — twenty-eight pages my father Sen. Bob Graham has been advocating for the release of, for 12 years.

I have read the 28 pages. My father has read the 28 pages. Some of my colleagues in the Congress have read the 28 pages. But yet, still today, the American people aren’t able to read them. As elected officials, we answer to the people. Adlai Stevenson said it best: “As citizens of this Democracy, you are the rulers and the ruled, the law-givers and the law-abiders, the beginning and the end.”

Mr. Speaker! No one has been able to answer the question, “Why is it necessary to continue to hide the truth from the public?” So, it’s time to allow all Americans to read the 28 pages and make up their own mind, as is their American right.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield back.

WALTER JONES: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Sen. Bob Graham from Florida, for taking the national lead to declassify the 28 pages that led to 9/11, when so many Americans were killed. This information is critical to the freedom of America.

We have introduced H. Resolution 14, Rep. [Stephen F.] Lynch, [thomas] Massey, and myself. We have over 54 of our colleagues in both parties who have joined us to say to President Obama, “You have the authority, you don’t even need Congress, to declassify this information. You promised the 9/11 families that you would do this. Mr. President! Keep your promise to the 9/11 families who are in so much pain. Keep your promise to the American people, and let the American people know the truth about 9/11.”

I yield back the balance of my time.

OGDEN: I would like to ask Jeffrey Steinberg to come to the podium to just elaborate just a little bit more on where this fight stands at the present moment.

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Well, I think it’s fair to say that President Obama, and now John Brennan, have put their collective feet in their mouths. President Obama, on three separate occasions, in face-to-face meetings with the family members of those killed on 9/11, promised declassification, and then, as Matt indicated, a few Sundays ago, John Brennan got on national television and he flat out said, “No, there will no release of those 28 pages.”

Just to make it clear that Brennan was speaking for the President, two days later Josh Earnest, the White House Press Secretary, indicated that the argument presented by John Brennan several days earlier on “Meet the Press,” was consistent with the thinking at the White House, and furthermore, he said, “We will do the review process and we believe that we will be able to make a decision before the President leaves office.”

So, rather than a decision that will be announced in May, or even in June, they’ve decided to try to kick the can down the road. This has been my consistent evaluation, Mr. LaRouche’s consistent evaluation, all along — that this President, being a British agent, being committed, along with John Brennan, to protecting the Saudis and covering for both the British and the Saudis, (and the FBI), will never make those pages public, unless he comes under the most intense pressure. Perhaps it will take impeachment.

That’s not the view of the American people, it’s not the view of a growing majority of members of Congress, and it’s no longer the view of other people in leading national security institutions of this country. Yesterday, John Lehman, who was a member of the 9/11 Commission and before that was the Secretary of the Navy under President Ronald Reagan, gave a series of interviews. I heard two of those interviews, personally, on CNN. What he made very clear is: the 28 pages must be public.

He said something more than anyone has publicly said up until this point. He said, [paraphrase] “Anyone who tells you that the 9/11 Commission exhausted all of the leads, is lying. The fact of the matter,” as he put it, “is that there were at least six officials of the Saudi government at the time of the 9/11 attacks who had direct contact with the hijackers.” He said there was someone in the Saudi Embassy in Washington, DC; there was a leading figure within the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles; there was a leading Saudi cleric associated with a major mosque in Los Angeles that was built by the Saudi government; there were representatives of Saudi charities and Saudi companies — part of their defense industry — who all had contact with the 9/11 hijackers. Particularly those hijackers who were the first to arrive in the United States over a year before the 9/11 attacks, and were residing in San Diego and for a period of time lived in the home of an FBI informant.

The comments by John Lehman have resonated very broadly. Richard Ben-Veniste, who was the General Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, echoed what was said by John Lehman. They both emphasized not only must the 28 pages be released, but a comprehensive, new, investigation, a de novo investigation, has to be opened, because there were many, many leads that were never followed. The 9/11 Commission did not have an open-ended, exhaustive, mandate.

And so, the question is: will there be a continuing momentum, excruciating pressure, on President Obama, to force the issue. Because this is an issue that may very well determine the future of this country and the world. If the British/Saudi combination that runs global terrorism, with the protection of the FBI, and with the protection of Presidents of the last 16 years — first George W. Bush and now Barack Obama — if this is allowed to go on, then it’s a very clear indication that we’ve lost even the minimal moral capacity to survive as a nation.

The stakes are absolutely enormous. It’s going to require all of your active and aggressive involvement to make sure that no stones are left unturned, and this issue is forced out.

OGDEN: And on that subject, it continues to be much, much broader than the 28 pages per se. As we’ve said, it goes far beyond, to the 80,000 pages that were involved in the Sarasota Case down in Florida. Bob Graham continues to make this point. There was widespread coverage of this, both nationally and internationally this week — the broader question, the 80,000 pages and beyond, and also the role that the FBI has continued to play, in stonewalling a thorough investigation on this front.

As I said, I want to just present the institutional question, and have Jeff deliver Mr. LaRouche’s response, and then we’re going to use that to segue into some remarks from Kesha Rogers. The question is as follows: “Mr. LaRouche, continuing economic crises in Greece, Puerto’s default, and a global economic slow-down, are raising the prospects of a global financial crisis. What measures, in your view, are required to effectively avoid such a crisis, and improve the global financial system?”

STEINBERG: Mr. LaRouche was very blunt and straightforward, and brief. You can’t fix something that is fatally flawed. You can’t repair the current financial-monetary system, because it’s based on money and it’s based on increasingly more and more fraudulently-generated money. If you don’t completely overturn this system, write off all of this cancerous gambling debt, and return to economics based on totally different core principles — principles of physical economy — the science driver concept, which will be a subject of much of the rest of this broadcast; if you don’t overturn the entire thing and create something that is completely different, based on principles which are not brand new, they’ve been tested in the past. Alexander Hamilton established an economy based on principles of Federal credit, national banking, and physical infrastructure. So, these things can be done; but don’t look to fix or change or reform the current system. Because by its very nature, it is deadly, fatally flawed, and has no right to be reformed or restored or revived; it’s got to be completely overhauled and replaced by something totally different.

OGDEN: Now, Mr. LaRouche went on to emphasize that the problem is that people tend to ask all the wrong questions; and then they convince themselves that they can deduce the answers to these questions, when they don’t even know what the right questions are. This is demonstrated no more vividly than in our approach to what the nature of the universe is, and the exploration of space. As people well know, Kesha Rogers has been a very long-term and vocal advocate on this question; and just this week, Kesha was involved in putting together a policy paper, along with Benjamin Deniston, which was published on the LaRouche PAC website on a new policy campaign page that we have just launched. Kesha can tell you a little bit more about this subject, but one of the major features of this policy page is the ongoing efforts by China to begin to explore what the real questions are. Mr. LaRouche was emphatic that the real timeline that we’re dealing with here, is the timeline over the next two years; during which China will begin to approach the successful completion of a mission to explore the far side of the Moon. This is the ongoing process of the Chang’e missions. And Mr. LaRouche said, if there’s not some terrible accident, if we can save civilization, if we can prevent the outbreak of World War III, or a similar crisis; the discoveries that will be made on the far side of the Moon, will be far beyond anything which we assume that we know about the universe, the Moon, and our relationship to it heretofore.

So, Kesha, I would like to let you elaborate a little bit more on this question.

KESHA ROGERS: Sure, thank you Matt. First of all, I’d like to say that the policy paper that Ben and I wrote, “Principles and Boundary Conditions of a New Space Program”, can be found on this website. And secondly, I want to let people know that they can actually participate in a discussion and dialogue with Ben and I concerning this paper. But I think that just taking the discussion with Mr. LaRouche that we just had a few moments ago, to that level of understanding, and which what we tried to demonstrate in this paper really gets at is, that there is no deductive method, no practical method to understanding what is our Solar System and what is it that we have yet to discover about it. we have yet to discover the ordering principles of our Solar System. And that understanding of the characteristics of the Solar System that can only be understood by the identity of the human mind, and who we are as human beings. And it just goes back to the challenges that we’ve faced and why certain mistakes have been made and certain incompetence when it comes to understanding our decisions in terms of our commitment to space exploration. One thing that came up in the discussions which I think is very crucial is to look at what it is that we were lacking in our understanding about the nature of a space program; a competent space program. When in the first beginnings of the space program you had tragic accidents; such as the one that happened with the Apollo 1 mission with the tragic loss of Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Chaffey. And when you look at something like this, people committed their lives, and they made clear upon going into this mission that they’re doing this because this is a sacrifice that they have to make for the advancement of the understanding of mankind in the Solar System. And this is the same commitment that you see soldiers on the battlefield taking; that they know that they’re putting their lives at risk. But it also poses more questions in terms of what we don’t know; and what we have yet to discover.

And I think that’s why it’s so important to look at what China is doing right now as a turning point for mankind in the Solar System, in the galaxy; to actually define mankind as a space-faring species on a totally different level in terms of what they’re doing with the commitment of the further development of the Moon, and particularly the far side of the Moon. This is something that we look at, and we see there’s a lot of deductive understanding and trying to understand the method by which we come to understand what our role is in the understanding of man in the Solar System; of why we have space travel. And I was just thinking back to Krafft Ehricke’s conception of why space travel is important; and he makes the point — and this is a quote from Ehricke, the German space pioneer, who actually coined the “extraterrestrial imperative” of mankind. And what he says is that “The concept of space travel carries with it an enormous impact, because it challenges man on practically all fronts of his physical and spiritual existence. The idea of travelling to other celestial bodies reflects the highest degree of independence and agility of the human mind.”

And I think that’s what’s happening to mankind right now. That we are being challenged on every front; that’s what has happened in terms of the existence of our space program, of being challenged on every front of our spiritual and physical existence. And understanding that we have a commitment to the future. And that’s what is the difference right now in terms of what we’re saying with the egregious attacks on the space program. The commitment to reverse everything that people in Mission Control, like Gene Krantz once said, that we’re going to commit to tough and conpetent. Because you don’t have tough and competent any longer when we allow for Obama to come in and dismantle and destroy our space program; and to make a mockery out of it. And to actually push forth a program for the space program that is completely out of line with reality; this idea that we’re just going to go and capture an asteroid. Or that we’re just going to send a man up to Mars on a one-way flight. We’re going to develop Mars in the context of not actually having an understanding of a unified galactic system; a Solar System which we have yet to understand and to come to know.

And the problem is, that we had a mission before Obama came in and shut it down, of returning our focus to development of the Moon. We had a mission around the development of the Moon that was being put forth by astronauts such as Harrison Smith prior to the end of the Apollo mission; at the end of the Apollo 17 mission when you were to have 18, 19, and 20. And those did not happen, because we lost our commitment to a competent space program; and started to have this fly-by-night [operation]. And so therefore, the risk of life was even greater; but more so, it’s almost like the military today. There’s a difference in terms of the understanding of what we’re committing our lives to; and there has to be a new assessment of what the space program represents. A new assessment from the identity of defending human creativity and the human species; and to actually go out and discover those things that we have yet to know. And China is a great example of that, because they’re taking life seriously; and they’re taking this mission and this commitment seriously. And as long as we have Obama in the White House — which I’ve called for his removal on numerous accounts — but this is fundamentally the number one charge of criminality against this President, is his actions against the space program.

I think the idea that we have to look at now is what is it that we’re going to commit ourselves to again? We have to have a science driver mission in this nation, based on the creative advancements of mankind; and we have to free mankind from the stupidity that has embarked upon the thinking of our population. And the space program is just what is necessary to bring about that freeing of mankind. I think it’s fair to say that on many occasions we’ve spoken about the role of man being given the power of creativity and fire by Prometheus; and it’s almost like we’re at a point right now where Zeus has been allowed to come back in and to steal that creative fire away from mankind again. That creative fire can be restored population into something that has never been done before. We have to think about how we transform the planet on which we live, as understanding that we here on Earth, and the planet of Earth, are not isolated. It’s not, as Krafft Ehricke says, a closed system.

And we can solve the problems that we’re facing here; the problems of war, the problems of famine, the problems of starvation, by getting a deeper understanding of the Solar System in which we live. And the things that were discussed prior to my comments here, that is what makes China, what makes Russia and their approach to what is the principle in which we have to organize and collaborate together as human beings; that’s what makes what they’re doing different, versus what you’re seeing coming from the current policy of the Obama administration in the attacks on the space program and in the drive toward war.

So, I think we’ll be discussing that more tomorrow; and I would encourage people to join us in that discussion and read that policy paper. Not from the standpoint of a technical paper, but more from the standpoint of what’s missing in our thinking; and understanding what we don’t know and what we have to come to understand.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Kesha. And very briefly before I introduce Megan, the URL for this new policy page which is available from LaRouche PAC is larouchepac.com/space. So we encourage you to visit that page; it has a lot, including the policy paper that Kesha just mentioned.

So, let me ask Megan to come to the podium.

MEGAN BEETS: Thanks, Matt. I would like to follow up and elaborate on what Kesha has already brought up, based on our discussion with Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche today.

I’d like to start with this point; that human beings, uniquely, are the only species we know of that is capable of perpetual progress. Now not only are humans capable of always progressing, always moving to a higher level of power, of capability; always moving to a greater and greater population density with more and more powerful minds. But that’s the great imperative of our species; unless we’re doing that, we’re not human and we collapse. Mr. LaRouche has placed great emphasis on a point of precisely this nature in the recent period. And I just want to read a short quote from a discussion that took place on Tuesday of this week. He said: “It’s the ability to create a new future; to create a development of a future that you had never known before or since. That is your obligation; don’t be practical. Don’t say, ‘I’m being practical’; it’s a waste of time. You have to think about this: Do you want all babies to be born with the same characteristics from the date of birth to the end? Do you want that? Are you content to seek that? Well then, you’re not human.”

Now, what does that mean? What should we seek then in terms of what we’re trying to establish for a New Paradigm for mankind? Well, this means that mankind must constantly be in a mode of discovery. Now I don’t mean discovery as in fulfilling and filling out the known unknowns, the challenges that we know that we still don’t know. I don’t mean checking those off the list. What I mean is, man has to be in a mode of discovery which him that the true nature of the human mind corresponds to something greater than what he knew before; greater than what we thought we were as a human species.

The United States was once in a mode such as that; something approximating that, in the space program that Kesha referenced under the leadership of people like John F Kennedy. We’re not in that mode anymore. China is in that mode today. Now China plans to land on the far side of the Moon two years from now in 2018. They’ve surpassed the great accomplishments of the United States in the 1960s; even though they seem to have come from far behind. China is about to do something which no one has ever done before. Now why are they doing that? Why are they landing on the far side of the Moon? Because we know what’s up there? Because we know exactly why we should go there? No! Exactly the opposite. Because we don’t know what’s up there.

Now today, Mr. LaRouche said of that plan by China to land on the far side, he said, “Take this concept as is intended for the next two years; that is the policy. Barring problems, there will be brilliant discoveries which will lead us into discoveries of what the mysteries are; those mysteries that most people try to explain away.” That idea, of pushing mankind not to discover what we think we should discover, but choosing to accept a mission which will force mankind to discover new questions, new mysteries about the universe; this was once the characteristic of the US space program. But more importantly, this was the characteristic of the vision of the people who intended to guide the US space program post-Apollo. And specifically here, I’m referring to the man who Kesha brought up in passing, the great space visionary Krafft Ehricke; who was part of the German rocket program, and came to the United States after World War II, and helped begin and establish the United States space program.

Krafft Ehricke wrote, in 1957, which was — if people remember — the year that Sputnik was launched; Krafft Ehricke wrote something called the Anthropology of Astronautics. And in it, he enumerated the three laws of astronautics. He said: 1) nobody and nothing under the natural laws of this universe impose any limitations on man, except man himself. 2) Not only the Earth, but the entire Solar System and as much of the universe as he can reach under the laws of Nature, are man’s rightful field of activity. And 3) By expanding throughout the universe, man fulfills his destiny as an element of life, endowed with the power of reason, and the wisdom of the moral law within himself.

Krafft, especially toward the end of his life — he died in 1984, perhaps ’86 — near the end of his life, Krafft Ehricke had developed a detailed and beautiful vision for the development of the Moon. And people can read this, he referred to the Moon as “Earth’s seventh continent”. His vision for the development of the Moon wasn’t just for the next 5, 10, 15 years; it stretched as far into the future as he could think. And this vision for the development of the Moon, which included industries, orbiting assembly stations; it included new concepts for how you could launch and land on the Moon; new ways to use lunar resources. This wasn’t as much a vision for the Moon per se, as it was a vision for civilization; a policy for mankind to begin a certain proposed map for man to begin undertaking the mission, taking the next steps forward in the evolution of man as a species not just of Earth, but of the Solar System.

Again, what’s the point in doing this? What was Krafft’s point for man to go to the Moon? For the development of profit and industries? No. To confront scientific challenges? Well, there are plenty of scientific challenges to be overcome by industrializing and colonizing the Moon; but that doesn’t really get at it. The point, and the point that Mr. LaRouche keeps emphasizing, is that man’s mode always has to be to challenge his notion of what it means to be human. What’s the relationship of the human mind to the principles which govern the universe?

Now, on that, I want to read somewhat of a paraphrase of something that Mr. LaRouche said today on that which I think expresses it better than I could now. He said, mankind does not have a good measuring device for understanding space. Take this imaginary celestial map that we have. Is it true? No, it’s not. We have not discovered the principles on which the universe is organized. Don’t try to add up the facts; discover principles which organize the universe. Those principles come from the human mind, from the mind of mankind. And what you want to do is use space to confirm and to explore those ideas. We have to go into the laboratory and discover what our mind has not yet discovered. Space is not what people think it is; the universe is a universe. What does that mean? It’s something that works on itself; and you’re trying to discover what it is which is working on itself. What is this thing which we call the universe? What is this thing which we call the Moon? We have no idea, but we’re going to try to find out.

I think that last point, that we don’t know what the Moon is, has probably surprised some people. Why don’t we know what the Moon is? We don’t know what the Moon is, because we don’t know what the Solar System is; we don’t know what the galaxy is. People might say, “What do you mean, we don’t know what the Solar System is? We’re flying around in it; we’ve sent Voyager off to look at the different planets.” Kepler gave us a very good notion of the organizing principle of the Solar System, as beautifully written in his Harmony of the World. But Kepler died before he got the chance to know a lot of things that we know today. For example, that there are other planets beyond Saturn. Kepler didn’t know about the physical characteristics of our Sun, of the planets; the interplanetary magnetic field, the space weather. And the different processes that occur out there. Kepler didn’t know that there was a galaxy; he didn’t know about other galactic systems, which are part of a larger system of which our galaxy is a part.

So today, we have absolutely no idea of what the unifying principle of the galactic system is. But one thing we do know, is that galaxy is looking at our Solar System; which is playing its own role within that organized system. We know that the galaxy sees the Earth, and we know that the galaxy sees the Moon. Now, we don’t know how the galaxy sees the Moon, but we have some clues; the beginnings of some clues, which we can pursue to try to open up new questions to figure it out.

A couple of these clues, which China is pursuing are: 1) Helium-3. Helium-3 — or, to say it differently — the Moon itself is a great depository for fuel for nuclear fusion. So, the Moon itself is the greatest source of power in terms of nuclear fusion of anything accessible to mankind. The form of that is Helium-3; this is an isotope of Helium that’s been slowly and patiently deposited on the Moon by the Sun over the course of billions of years. We think there might be more Helium-3 on the far side of the Moon than on the near side.

Now, China is planning on going to the far side of the Moon to find out about Helium-3; and they state it openly. This is a quote from Ouyang Ziyuan, who is the father of the Chinese lunar program; he said: “The Moon is so rich in Helium-3, which is a possible fuel for nuclear fusion. And this could solve human beings’ energy demands for about 10,000 years at least. There are so many potential developments, it’s beautiful. So we hope that we can fully utilize the Moon to support sustainable development for humans and society.” So the Chinese are pursuing this, even though we don’t know exactly what Helium-3 is, what its characteristics are in terms of fusion. And we also haven’t figured out nuclear fusion. There are so many challenges that have confronted us in our attempts to master fusion, which show us that we don’t really know what the nucleus of the atom is, completely. So the Chinese have put forward this visionary and advanced program to go to the Moon and to take this leap.

One other clue I want to bring up in terms of these seed crystals to pursue to open up these new mysteries, is that just as the galaxy is looking at the Moon; from the far side of the Moon in particular, where China is going to go in two years, we will be able to look at the galaxy in a way that we’ve never been able to look at it before, particularly in the very low range of radio frequencies. These are frequencies that are blocked out from the surface of the Earth, because of the Earth’s atmosphere and other factors; and they’re even blocked out from Earth’s orbit. But the far side of the Moon is a unique place that we’ll be able to go and look at different kinds of stars, pulsars, different galactic formations; and see them in a wavelength in which we’ve never seen. Do we know what we’re going to see? No. We have no idea; but that’s exactly the point. China is choosing to lead the way to put mankind in a position to open up the new questions; to overturn what we think we know organizes the galactic system and the universe.

This gets back to the fundamental point. The point of all of this, the point of the space program, and what really invigorates a population to take on a mission for the future, is a sense of discovering these higher principles which are determining our existence. And in doing that, uplifting mankind as a whole to assuming new powers, new capabilities; creating new powers within mankind which correspond to higher powers of the universe that we didn’t know existed before. So, these next two years of this policy being led by China, are going to be decisive in exactly the way Kesha said a few moments ago; and our mission today is to get the United States to adopt this mission for mankind.

OGDEN: Thank you, Megan; and thank you very much, Kesha. Again, the address of the new policy page — which is interactive — and we encourage you to explore it and to share it also, is larouchepac.com/space. It also has a very good outline and sort of background on what Kesha’s personal role in this campaign has been, through her Congressional election campaigns, her campaign for the United States Senate. The final item on that page is, as we were saying, the policy paper which Kesha and Ben Deniston co-wrote; this is the policy outline for a new space program. Tomorrow, there will be a live dialogue which you can be involved in, with Kesha and Ben; the link to that is already live on the LaRouche PAC page, and we encourage you to be a participant in that. And use the time that you have between now and then, to study more of the material which we have made available to you.

So, with that said, I would like to thank Megan, thank Kesha, thank Jeff, and thank all of you for joining us here today; and ask you to please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. Thank you and good night.